Conley v. Rivera

Plaintiff,
John L. Conley, currently incarcerated at Northern
Correctional Institution, filed this Complaint pro
se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section
1983”). Mr. Conley's Complaint was received on
December 19, 2016, ECF No. 1, and his motion to proceed
in forma pauperis was granted on January 4, 2017,
ECF No. 9. The Defendants are Captain Jose Rivera,
Lieutenants Hicks and Goudreault, and Correctional Officers
Magliochetti, Mclain, [1] Bertrand, Cheney, Felix, Usluca, Cabrera
and Lavimodiere. Mr. Conley alleges that the Defendants
failed to protect him from an alleged assault by another
inmate.

I.
Standard of Review

Under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review prisoner civil
complaints and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is
frivolous or malicious, that fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. In reviewing a pro se complaint, the
Court must “liberally construe [the] pleadings, ”
and interpret the complaint to “raise the strongest
arguments it suggests.” Abbas v. Dixon, 480
F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Tracy v.
Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101-03 (2d Cir. 2010)
(discussing special solicitude that courts ought to show to
pro se litigants). Although detailed allegations are not
required, the complaint must still include sufficient facts
to afford the defendants fair notice of the claims and the
grounds upon which they are based and to demonstrate a right
to relief. Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555-56 (2007). Conclusory allegations are not sufficient.
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The
plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

II.
Factual Allegations

While
incarcerated at Bridgeport Correctional Center, Mr. Conley
was allegedly designated as a Security Risk Group member and
allegedly transferred to MacDougall-Walker Correctional
Institution in late December 2015. Compl. at 8, ECF No. 1.
Mr. Conley was confined in the B1 housing unit in Phase One
of the Security Risk Group Program. Id. Captain
Rivera was allegedly in charge of the unit. Id.

Allegedly,
inmates in the B1 unit are required to attend recreation
handcuffed with their hands behind their backs. Compl. at 8.
During his recreation time, which Mr. Conley allegedly shared
with the Bloods, he allegedly observed that thinner inmates
were able to slip their handcuffs to the front and assault
other inmates. Id. Mr. Conley allegedly brought this
fact to Captain Rivera's attention numerous times. Mr.
Conley also alleges that he told Captain Rivera about such an
inmate, Jayquan Dilday, who allegedly insisted that Mr.
Conley was not a gang member and had stated that, if Mr.
Conley continued to have recreation time at the same time as
the Bloods, Mr. Dilday would assault Mr. Conley. Id.
at 8-9.

Mr.
Conley allegedly submitted his first request to Captain
Rivera on February 9, 2016, after allegedly hearing members
of the Bloods asking why Mr. Conley shared recreation time
with them. Compl. at 9. When he received no response, Mr.
Conley allegedly spoke to Captain Rivera when he toured the
housing unit. Id. Captain Rivera allegedly stated
that he would look into the matter. Id. Mr. Conley
alleges that he did not attend recreation while waiting for a
response. Id. Inmates who had allegedly overheard
the conversation between Mr. Conley and Captain Rivera
allegedly began calling Mr. Conley a snitch. Id.

On
March 13, 2016, Mr. Conley allegedly passed Captain Rivera a
note while Captain Rivera was touring the housing unit and
told Captain Rivera that he was losing patience. Compl. at
9-10. Captain Rivera allegedly stated that he was still
investigating the matter and advised Mr. Conley to “sit
tight.” Id. at 10.

On May
26, 2016, Mr. Conley alleges that he attended recreation to
speak with the Bloods to try to come to an agreement that
would allow him to attend recreation. Compl. at 10. While he
was speaking to Blood members, another Blood-affiliated
inmate allegedly slipped his handcuffs to the front and
assaulted Mr. Conley, who was unable to defend himself as his
hands were behind his back in handcuffs. Id.

Defendants
Hicks, Goudreault, Cheney, Bertrand and Mclain allegedly
responded to the assault and escorted Mr. Conley to
segregation. Compl. at 11. Five minutes later, Defendant
Goudreault allegedly escorted Mr. Conley to the medical unit
where the laceration to Mr. Conley's right eye, sustained
during the alleged assault, was treated. Id.

The
following day, Mr. Conley allegedly returned to B1 unit and
permitted to serve his segregation time there. Compl. at 11.
Mr. Conley allegedly experienced explosive headaches and
blurred vision. Id. He was allegedly seen in the
Medical Unit and scheduled for an eye exam. Id.

III.
Discussion

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mr.
Conley asserts three legal claims: (1) a claim for
supervisory liability against Defendants Rivera, Hicks and
Goudreault; (2) a claim for deliberate indifference to safety
against Defendant Rivera; and (3) a claim for failure to
protect him from harm against Defendants Mclain, Bertrand,
Cheney, Magliochetti, Felix, Usluca, Cabrera and Lavimodiere.
&ldquo;Because a finding of supervisory liability requires
that the allegations against that supervisory defendant
&lsquo;satisfy each element of the underlying constitutional
tort, &rdquo; the Court first considers the deliberate
indifference to safety claim against Captain Rivera before
considering the supervisory liability claim against him and
Defendants Hicks and Goudreault. Manning v. Griffin,
No. 15-CV-3 (KMK), 2016 WL ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.